The Effects of Grants and the Marginal Cost of Public Funds: Evidence from Brazilian States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flypaper effect is the empirical anomaly by which intergovernmental grants tend to be transformed by recipient authorities into public expenditures at a considerably higher rate than local private resources. The objective of this research is to detect the existence and investigate the causes of the flypaper effect in the Brazilian states. Panel data evidence from 27 Brazilian states from 1985 to 2010 indicates the existence of a large flypaper effect, with an estimated impact of grants on public expenditures. Considering there are some ways to calculate MCF proxies, first, an autonomous index was used as a proxy of the marginal cost of public funds (MCF), because it represents how much the municipality can survive by itself, representing the municipalities’ independency to federal grants. Second, the MCF was calculated by the derivation of Proper Tax Revenue to the Total Revenues. The results show that the stimulative effect of grants on public spending increases with the MCF in both proxies, but it was stronger in the autonomous index proxy, in convergence to results of [5] to Canadian provincial data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.095 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".